RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01507
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the Reserve grade of major.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received a letter advising him that he was eligible for promotion in the
Air Force Reserve but he never received any correspondence approving and/or
acting upon the recommendation.
In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement, a letter
transferring him to the honorary Air Reserve, his promotion recommendation
letter, and his Officer Reserve Corps appointment letter. His complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPB reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPB states
that he was sent a letter dated 16 Apr 51 stating that he was eligible for
promotion and requested completion of the required forms. At the time the
letter was sent to the applicant he had applied for a delay in reporting
for active military service. He was granted the 179-day delay on 10 Apr
51. On 29 Jun 51, he was notified that he was being transferred to the
Inactive Air Reserve due to physical disability, and that he was eligible
for transfer to the Honorary Air Reserve Section. His transfer was
effective 12 Feb 52.
No officer is eligible for promotion while in an inactive status. The 29
Jun 51 assignment to the Inactive Air Reserve rendered him ineligible for
promotion. If he had returned the forms requested in the letter he would
have been screened out of eligibility due to his pending transfer to
inactive status. The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Jun
02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.
However; we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility that based on the policy that was in
effect at the time, he did not meet the qualifications that would have made
him eligible for promotion to major. Therefore, we adopt their rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application
was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will
only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant
evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01507 in
Executive Session on 7 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 31 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jun 02.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
He was to be promoted to E-7 under the 12/20 rule. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00933
She was considered by the FY02 JAG and Chaplain Major Selection Board (V0402B), which convened on 19 Feb 01, and the FY03 JAG and Chaplain Other than Selected Reserve Board (W0403B), which convened on 22 Apr 02, but not selected for promotion by either board. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00824
In this regard, we noted the statement from the applicant’s flight commander to HQ ARPC, which the senior rater concurred with, indicating that the applicant’s position vacancy promotion recommendation form (PV PRF) package was completed in a timely manner, but for several reasons was not processed by the published suspense date, resulting in the applicant being denied an opportunity for promotion consideration. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-02455C
The Air Force evaluation stated that there were some errors in the applicant's record as it appeared before the selection boards in question and recommended to the Board that corrections be made to his Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs), he receive SSB consideration for the FY00 and FY01 boards, and if not selected by either board, he be considered for continuation by Special Review Board (SRB). The Board concurred with the recommendation of the Air Force evaluator and recommended that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01622
All LEAD officers display the current PAS of assignment (which is active duty), the file from which the data is obtained (“BA” meaning active duty officer), an identifier showing “AGR” (also indicating full-time active duty), and 239 active duty training points in the current retirement/retention (R/R) year (“PT SINCE: 13 Feb 01” at the bottom of the OSB). In addition, after reviewing the applicant’s OPRs, we noted that the assignment history section of the contested OSB contains...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03824
In accordance with AFI 36-2504, he should have been transferred from the ADL to the RASL and subsequently promoted to major with an appropriate DOR as an active Reserve officer. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicable statutes and regulations were properly applied in determining the applicant's date of rank to the grade...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00868 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the grade of captain on 2 Apr 51, to the grade of major on 19 Apr 55, and to the grade of lieutenant colonel on 1 Jul 62. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01189
HQ ARPC/DPB indicates they could not locate the promotion order that advanced him in grade to USAFR captain and advises that the requirements of the Air Force at the time of the USAF appointment dictated the grade in which the applicant could be appointed. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPO asserts neither the applicant’s record nor his submission supports his contention that he should have been promoted to captain when he entered active duty in 1951 and, if he...
In the applicant's case, he waited almost 7 years after he states he discovered the alleged error or injustice before he filed a claim, although the applicant knew when he applied for retirement in 3 Oct 67, the highest grade he held on active duty was master sergeant (MSgt). Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit C). In the applicant's case, the grade is MSgt (Exhibit D).
In a letter dated 12 Jan 02, the applicant's wife requested an extension of time in which to respond. A copy of his response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. Then in a letter dated 30 Jan 02, the applicant requested that his case be temporarily withdrawn. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application...